@sh76 saidYou can keep even more if rates go down further. It seems like quite the paradox.
Taxes are too low from a policy perspective. The government needs more money so it can pay for social security, Medicare, Medicaid, infrastructure, defense and other important government expenditures. Taxes can be raised without hurting the incentive to work (I'm not going to go through the Laffer curve again, but anyone interested can Google or AI it). I have a few specific sug ...[text shortened]... sides) and is not going to handle my money properly in any case, I'm happy to keep it in my pocket.
There are lots on here who want to both sides the deficit problem, but it's been clear for at least 40 years which party is more fiscally responsible. It ain't the GOP.
@sh76 saidWell, congratulations but the QBI is absurd. There's no reason a self-employed individual should be able to simply erase 20% of his net profit from his taxable income while the average stiff has to pay on 100% of the wages (minus deductions of course).
Just did my tax return.
Was once again thankful for the 20% QBI deduction. Saved me a nice chunk of cash.
Sure, taxes are too low. But I've given up on either party being the slightest bit fiscally responsible.
So I'll take the money.
I'm willing to pay higher taxes to close the federal budget and maybe even pay down the federal debt... but that's not what will happen to it.
So, like I said, I'll take the money.
@my-king-and-i removed their quoted post===Work your whole life for what?===
How about making a comfortable life for my wife and kids?
@no1marauder saidThe theory is the same as with capital gains. People need a little more incentive to put capital at hazard than to get a job wherein they're not risking any capital. If the entrepreneur loses money, the government doesn't give it back to him; it doesn't seem unfair for the government to take a little less of it when the business does work.
Well, congratulations but the QBI is absurd. There's no reason a self-employed individual should be able to simply erase 20% of his net profit from his taxable income while the average stiff has to pay on 100% of the wages (minus deductions of course).
Plus, it's a way to help the participants in the "gig economy" pay for health insurance and retirement accounts that they don't get at work.
I understand the arguments against it; and over-all tax rates are too low (and the standard deduction is too high). But the QBI is not totally illogical.
@wildgrass saidJust a suggestion... you may want to wait until the recession happens before crowing about it.
First president in history to cause a recession on purpose.
@sh76 saidWall Street journal is crowing, mate.
Just a suggestion... you may want to wait until the recession happens before crowing about it.
They are actually predicting a global depression on par with the 1930s.
So, compared to that, my crowing about him causing a recession is an optimistic outcome of starting a tariff war with Canada and Mexico for no reason.
@kmax87 saidThe 99/1 thing has become politically hot recently and the idea that Trump only protects the rich is a common refrain, which is why I used the term.
Why do people rate wealth as only existing in the one percent. To be sure you don't want to be in the bottom 50 but anything in the top 35 is probably way OK.
===anything in the top 35 is probably way OK===
Looking at income and wealth in a vacuum doesn't work. I have 6 kids and I live in New York. If I were in the 65th percentile of income, I'd starve and lose my house. Many people would look at my income and call me rich. But I'm not. I'm able to provide a comfortable life for my family and put a few bucks into a SEP for retirement, but I'm really not rich. Not to get too personal, but I drive a Hyundai Elantra, I fly coach and I don't go out to eat much (maybe a couple of times a month, and it's been several months since I've been to a really nice restaurant).
I'm not complaining (first world problems, eh?), but the people who would take one look at my income and scream "soak the rich" are clueless.
1 edit
@sh76 saidNot to get too personal, but I drive a Hyundai Elantra, I fly coach and I don't go out to eat much (maybe a couple of times a month, and it's been several months since I've been to a really nice restaurant).
The 99/1 thing has become politically hot recently and the idea that Trump only protects the rich is a common refrain, which is why I used the term.
===anything in the top 35 is probably way OK===
Looking at income and wealth in a vacuum doesn't work. I have 6 kids and I live in New York. If I were in the 65th percentile of income, I'd starve and lose my house. Many people ...[text shortened]... , eh?), but the people who would take one look at my income and scream "soak the rich" are clueless.
Look on the bright side. You have a much better baseball team.
If the Seattle Mariners bought a funeral home - no one would die! 😏